Mississippi has officially ratified the 13th amendment to the US constitution, which abolishes slavery and which was officially noted in the constitution on 6 December 1865. All 50 states have now ratified the amendment.

When all the forcings are combined in Figure 6, the net forcing shows good correlation to global temperature. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO. The main discrepancy is a decade centered around 1940.

That's what the climate models do. The climatologists use physics equations and actual input data for(1) well mixed global warming gases (including Co2)(2) solar variation(3) aerosols (stratospheric and tropospheric)(4) land use(5) snow albedo(6) black carbonWhen all the forcings are combined in Figure 6, the net forcing shows good correlation to global temperature. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO. The main discrepancy is a decade centered around 1940.http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperatu...compare their results with actual

Individuals can have a great effect on energy consumption by using smart products in their homes. Check out greenenergyefficientproducts.com for great ideas that will conserve energy AND save you money!

<quoted text>And yet she cannot understand the simple mechanics of fluid displacement. Does the phrase "educated idiot" come to mind?

With you the correct term would be an "uneducated idiot".

As for the subject of fluid displacement, that is your opinion and not backed by anything more than the opinion of you and a few others who do not want to face the facts and are ignoring the proof all along the shore line.

<quoted text>With you the correct term would be an "uneducated idiot".As for the subject of fluid displacement, that is your opinion and not backed by anything more than the opinion of you and a few others who do not want to face the facts and are ignoring the proof all along the shore line.

I don't dote on degrees to validate the legitimacy and/or accuracy of my (or your) posts. Are you not the one who poo-poos the consensus of thousands whose degrees are far more advanced and relevant than your own?

Regarding fluid displacement? Not opinion. The proof is in your posts, my dear. You could be the world's greatest at drawing a bucket of water and an ice cube in a CAD program, but face it - you're lousy at drawing practical and accurate conclusions.

I'm glad that I survived the "mini-ice age" that scientists predicted in the early 70s to occur around 2000!

A few climatologists questioned if the discover of aerosols (from pollution) would be stronger than the CO2 effect, and quickly reversed themselves as better measurements came in, including from satellites.

The majority of published climatologists always said CO2 was the stronger force.

There never was ONE world renown science agency that said there was enough evidence to support global cooling as a threat.

Virtually ALL of them today say they have the evidence global warming is.

<quoted text>A few climatologists questioned if the discover of aerosols (from pollution) would be stronger than the CO2 effect, and quickly reversed themselves as better measurements came in, including from satellites.The majority of published climatologists always said CO2 was the stronger force.There never was ONE world renown science agency that said there was enough evidence to support global cooling as a threat.Virtually ALL of them today say they have the evidence global warming is.

When significant parts of the corporate media are openly embracing, and indeed pushing, climate ‘skepticism’, is there any meaningful justification for this in the climate science? No. Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”

Powell said:

Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Adding:

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

The notable US science writer Phil Plait “marveled” at Powell’s “persistence in unearthing the facts and figures”, saying:

His premise was simple: if global warming isn’t real and there’s an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.

But Powell’s findings were clear, says Plait:

There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.

When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they don’t publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what they’re doing isn’t science. It’s nonsense. And worse, it’s dangerous nonsense. Because they’re fiddling with the data while the world burns.

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.